Court to decide if Calif. can regulate video games

WASHINGTON 
The Supreme Court, wading into a clash between free-speech rights and laws protecting children, agreed Monday to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The court will review a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law violated minors' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.

The law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns.

Schwarzenegger said he was pleased the high court will review that decision. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," the governor said.

Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that the video games - which the Entertainment Software Association says were played in 68 percent of American households - are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment.

The decision to hear this case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue that could affect the high court's consideration.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said video games should get the same First Amendment protections as the court reaffirmed last week for videos.

Given last week's ruling, "we are hopeful that the court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment," he said.

Leland Yee, the California state senator who wrote the video game ban, said the Supreme Court obviously doesn't think the animal cruelty video ban and the violent video game ban are comparable. If they thought that, he said, the justices would not be reviewing the Ninth Circuit's decision to throw out the video game ban.

"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," said Yee, a San Francisco Democrat.

California lawmakers approved the law, in part, by relying on several studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence in children. But federal judges have dismissed that research.

"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling.

Callahan also said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games.

The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games. They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing M-rated, or mature-rated games designed for adults.

But courts in other states have struck down similar laws.

The video game industry also argues that approval of California's video game restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children. "The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of nonprotected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.